GERALD DOBLY MCCLOUD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court quashed the district court's opinion and remanded for reconsideration based on prior rulings regarding jury selection.
The district court held that the challenge of black veniremen did not violate prior standards because the defendant failed to show racial motivation. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State V. Slappy Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review McCloud v. State, 517 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), based on express and direct conflict with State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988), and Black-shear v. State, 521 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1988). We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In Slappy we clarified the standards of State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). Slappy held that, in cases in which a member of a distinct minority allegedly is removed improperly from a jury venire by the state, any doubt as to whether the complaining party has met its initial burden in challenging this practice should be resolved in that party’s favor. We further held that the state then must tender reasons that are, first, neutral and reasonable and, second, not a pretext. 522 So. 2d at 22.
The district court below held that the challenge of the vast majority of black veniremen did not constitute a violation of Neil because the defendant had failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that this occurred for racial reasons. The district court further relied on a case we have quashed on review, Blackshear v. State, 504 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), quashed 521 So. 2d 1083 (Fla.1988). Because the opinion below thus suggests that the district court may have applied an incorrect standard, we accordingly quash the opinion below and remand for reconsideration in light of our opinions in Slappy and Blackshear. It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, MCDONALD, SHAW, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parrish v. State, 540 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…f proof shifts to the state to rebut that inference by furnishing a “ ‘clear and reasonably specific’ racially neutral explanation of ‘legitimate reasons’ for the state’s use of peremptory challenges.” Slappy, 522 So. 2d at 22; see McCloud v. State, 530 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1988). The trial court may not accept the reasons proffered at face value, but must evaluate the explanation just as it would weigh any disputed fact. “Part of the trial judge’s role is to evaluate both the credibility of the person [*872] offe…
-
Mayes v. State, 550 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…on claiming that Mayes never demonstrated a likelihood of discrimination with the result that the burden of proof never shifted to the state to [*499] justify its challenge of Goffe. We have concluded that Mayes met the burden. See McCloud v. State, 530 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1988). In sum, we are persuaded from our consideration of the record and the doctrines announced in Neil and Slappy that the state failed to bring its exclusion of Goffe within permissible boundaries and that the trial court failed to satisfy…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)
- Blackshear v. State, 521 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1988)
- Blackshear v. State, 504 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- McCLOUD v. State, 517 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)